rgscg

  • Dec 12, 2021
  • Joined Aug 4, 2021
  • I would like to echo a few of the responses to the last version of this proposal by saying I would be supportive of open source funding but not climate and longevity research. And I have a lot of KLIMA. It just seems out of scope.

    The revised proposal changes the amounts, but that's not what most of the debate was about IMO. I'd like to see some options for Ohmies to express their opinions on the proper recipients of the donation.

  • bouttreetreefiddy

    Agreed. OHM has shown some signs of becoming inversely related to ETH performance. With the amount of activity in the ecosystem and the upcoming merge, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to see this as the next 2017 style bull market. There will be a lot of competition to attract investment.

  • Mark11 Sure. So I'm not opposed to a decrease in APY. But this needs to be carefully balanced with the need for growth and the runway and so on. I think I am opposed to the framework. Rather, I think 1) we should not set future expectations rigidly at this point in time, and 2) these changes should be introduced carefully, and perhaps gradually, not with only a two week notice to those who may not follow governance closely.

    • I'd like to make two points. First, that OHM is a very new project and while growth has been excellent for the time it's been around, the project is still far from mainstream even in the ETH community. I believe we need to incentivize this same level of exponential growth to continue for some time longer before the protocol will grow to its potential from its own momentum.

      Second, on the topic of incentives for growth, an argument can be made that a supply reduction results in an increase of price, and so these two things are an equivalent trade in the consideration of this proposal. I don't believe this is true. In the crypto markets, even the largest projects have insane price volatility, and it's very difficult to reliably draw patterns between fundamentals and price action. Because of this, I believe investors will weigh protocol guaranteed returns much more than the concept of price appreciation, especially those new to OHM who do not fully understand how the protocol works. So even if in practice this is an equivalent trade, favoring price appreciation over APY will be harmful to growth.